Degree irrelevant: Employment is essentially based on the individual? (1 Viewer)

[cpk9]

Someone said to me the other day that to an employer, a degree is a display of an individual's ability to display attributes of your own work ethic and abilities, and as soon as you get out of uni - employment is based on the strength of your personality. Obviously you'd be qualified, but the fine print of these qualifications is what draws subtle lines that put some people above others.

The example in question are the times where one job applicant is sometimes 'better qualified' by things such as attending a more prestigious university, or completing (for example) a B Science (Biotechnology), in opposition to a B Biotechnology.

Do you value personality over knowledge? Would employers? Is it unfair to assume that the two aren't mutually exclusive? Could an attractive personality overcome what is seemingly a 'lower' degree from a less reputable university?

Or are we that caught up in elitism that the nature of a 'people-based' industry is lost.

Or am I not making much sense.

 

[ur_inner_child]

Depends on the employer and depends on the job. Of course personality is always a good upperhand in anything.

My boyfriend's dad employed someone based on UAI and type of business degree. He manages/managed various wharfs - Glebe Island, Darling Harbour etc.

So anyway he employed this person with little work experience, impressive UAI and business degree. He told me he had doubts and acknowledged that she was a little snobby princess as far as he was concerned.

Basically nowadays, he's had it with degrees and uai's and his personal taste is people with extra curricular activities. He thinks it usually makes up for a not-so hot-shot business degree.

Employers have their own way of looking for the best, whether it be knowledge, experience, personality, well-roundedness and genuine interest.

 

[Affinity]

I think there are 3 different points here

Someone said to me the other day that to an employer, a degree is a display of an individual's ability to display attributes of your own work ethic and abilities, and as soon as you get out of uni - employment is based on the strength of your personality. Obviously you'd be qualified, but the fine print of these qualifications is what draws subtle lines that put some people above others.

The example in question are the times where one job applicant is sometimes 'better qualified' by things such as attending a more prestigious university, or completing (for example) a B Science (Biotechnology), in opposition to a B Biotechnology.

Just like how they count goal difference when teams are tied in a soccer tournament. Some one's got to become the loser.

Well it's not all knowledge and it's not all personality. One needs enough knowledge to do the job, and a personality good enough to get along with the group. The reason for such prominence attached to personality is that with most jobs, knowing more than what's required is of marginal significance. Occupations that are exceptions to this will often value ability, remember that professor who's an arse?

Do you value personality over knowledge? Would employers? Is it unfair to assume that the two aren't mutually exclusive? Could an attractive personality overcome what is seemingly a 'lower' degree from a less reputable university?

Personally I value knowledge, personality is the weapon one use to advance oneself in a society, knowledge is what a society has against external hazards.

for employers it depends. If the job is to design a rocket to go to space I would dare say your personality matters little. If it is more of a selling position then personality comes first.

And to repeat the first paragraph, if a firm's main business is competing against something inanimate, then knowledge preceeds, if they mainly deal with people then it's personality.

Another way to put it is that personality is like some sort of luxury.

Or are we that caught up in elitism that the nature of a 'people-based' industry is lost.

In fact, I think "people based" industry is elitism, there it's personalities(not in the sense of disposition) and not objectives that drives the operation. I am against this, but at the same time I think it's unavoidable. Humans are motivated by success, and success is measured against your neighbours and colleagues. One will always desire to be important

Or am I not making much sense.

It was a bit unclear

And here's some advice: If something gets talked about too often, you can bet that it's not going to be important